The Defence Will State Their Case

[mrswah]

The police clearly thought different. It clearly states on the law pages that VT phoned police from Holland to tell them he remembered that the car had moved on the night. I am not disputing he helped CJ move the car on the morning but that is not what he told police, he was clearly indicating the car had moved without any help from himself - there is a difference between helping to move a car on a morning and seeing it had been moved on a night.

I wasn't disputing that either!  It is well known that either he or Tanja rang the police from Holland. CJ was already in custody by then, though, and, like CJ, Vincent and Tanja were merely doing what the police had asked them to do, ie phoning the police if they remembered anything else! IMO, CJ probably did move his car, probably because he had heard it was going to snow that night, so he wanted to make it easier to drive it out in the morning. As far as I know, he has never denied doing so, and I don't believe there was any sinister reason why he did!

Interesting that those who contacted the police with additional information ended up getting arrested. It certainly puts me off ever doing the same!

[justsaying]

Semantics....

Clearly Dr Vincent Tabak would have noticed that the car had changed position... If Dr Vincent tabak has left his property for any reason after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 and we are lead to believe he went to collect his girlfriend from her party.....And in the morning he sees this car then parked on the drive, It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that the car had clearly been moved from the road to the drive, clearly indication a change of position....

Nine, he tried to make police believe that there was something sinister in the car being moved. He knew himself that it did not matter that the car had moved because he knew without a doubt that CJ was innocent. He knew this because he himself killed Joanna - as admitted. Doesn't take a "nuclear physicist" to work that out either based on the evidence!

[mrswah]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/yeates-landlord-criticises-police

During the trial it emerged that Tabak had tried to shift blame on to Jefferies by telling police the landlord had moved his car on the night of the killing. The judge, Mr Justice Fielding, said it was an "aggravating feature" of the case that he had tried to blame Jefferies.


And yes The Guardian is a very reputable newspaper.

The Guardian is my favourite newspaper! 

I don't agree with the judge in this instance, however.

[mrswah]

Nine, he tried to make police believe that there was something sinister in the car being moved. He knew himself that it did not matter that the car had moved because he knew without a doubt that CJ was innocent. He knew this because he himself killed Joanna - as admitted. Doesn't take a "nuclear physicist" to work that out either based on the evidence!

I don't agree. VT and Tanja both thought the car had been moved, and surely, you don't believe Tanja had anything to do with the murder,

[justsaying]

I wasn't disputing that either!  It is well known that either he or Tanja rang the police from Holland. CJ was already in custody by then, though, and, like CJ, Vincent and Tanja were merely doing what the police had asked them to do, ie phoning the police if they remembered anything else! IMO, CJ probably did move his car, probably because he had heard it was going to snow that night, so he wanted to make it easier to drive it out in the morning. As far as I know, he has never denied doing so, and I don't believe there was any sinister reason why he did!

Interesting that those who contacted the police with additional information ended up getting arrested. It certainly puts me off ever doing the same!

He was arrested because he was asking too many questions about forensics etc -this cause alarm bells to ring, they took his DNA and surprise, surprise a match came up with the DNA found on the victims body! This would not stop me coming forward with information if I had nothing to hide! I never said you were disputing it, nor did I imply that you were.

[justsaying]

I don't agree. VT and Tanja both thought the car had been moved, and surely, you don't believe Tanja had anything to do with the murder,

How do you know she did believe that? How do you know that VT didn't just suggest it to her and she went along with him? There is nothing in any court reporting to suggest it was her who told police this either way but there is a lot suggesting it was him. Including the some of Nines own links.

[mrswah]

He was arrested because he was asking too many questions about forensics etc -this cause alarm bells to ring, they took his DNA and surprise, surprise a match came up with the DNA found on the victims body! This would not stop me coming forward with information if I had nothing to hide! I never said you were disputing it, nor did I imply that you were.

So, is it suspicious to ask questions about the forensics?  I recall the police were suspicious because he remarked about the front door being removed, and he was told it was "normal procedure". Well, I would have asked about that too, because I have never heard of that being done before, "normal procedure" or not!  I am inquisitive, and I certainly would have been, had it been my next door neighbour who had been killed. As for the DNA, it had to be enhanced, and, from what I remember reading. the sample was used up in the enhancing procedure , so it could never be checked by the defence.

Therefore, I ask questions!

[mrswah]

How do you know she did believe that? How do you know that VT didn't just suggest it to her and she went along with him? There is nothing in any court reporting to suggest it was her who told police this either way but there is a lot suggesting it was him. Including the some of Nines own links.

I have read reports saying it was her who rang the police. Will try to find the links.

[justsaying]

So, is it suspicious I one asks questions about the forensics?  I recall the police were suspicious because he remarked about the front door being removed, and he was told it was "normal procedure". Well, I would have asked about that too, because I have never heard of that being done before, "normal procedure" or not!  I am inquisitive, and I certainly would have been, had it been my next door neighbour who had been killed. As for the DNA, it had to be enhanced, and, from what I remember reading. the sample was used up in the enhancing procedure , so it could never be checked by the defence.

Therefore, I ask questions!

You don't just ask questions, you dispute all of the evidence available.

[mrswah]

You don't just ask questions, you dispute all of the evidence available.

Ok, so I question the evidence!  I think outside the box, I'm afraid.

This is neither right not wrong, IMO.

[justsaying]

I have read reports saying it was her who rang the police. Will try to find the links.

With all due respect I am not interested in newspaper reports, I am interested in what the evidence was at trial. The judge clearly stated that it was VT who tried to blame CJ - he must have had good reason to think such a thing. Wonder why his girlfriend isn't fighting for her beloved - perhaps because she too is sickened by his guilt? I have seen suggestions that his family are unable to speak out, I find this complete rubbish. As I have pointed out numerous times, people with higher profile cases manage to speak out about their alleged innocence, what is so different about Tabak?

[justsaying]

Ok, so I question the evidence!  I think outside the box, I'm afraid.

This is neither right not wrong, IMO.

Questioning the evidence and outright disputing it is two totally different things. People have been convicted on a lot less. I do not see people disputing the evidence in those cases - in fact the way it is disputed in this case means that every single person ever found guilty of murder must be innocent.

[mrswah]

With all due respect I am not interested in newspaper reports, I am interested in what the evidence was at trial. The judge clearly stated that it was VT who tried to blame CJ - he must have had good reason to think such a thing. Wonder why his girlfriend isn't fighting for her beloved - perhaps because she too is sickened by his guilt? I have seen suggestions that his family are unable to speak out, I find this complete rubbish. As I have pointed out numerous times, people with higher profile cases manage to speak out about their alleged innocence, what is so different about Tabak?

I agree that the judge did indeed say that, but I don't have to agree with him.

As for his girlfriend and family, as I have said previously, we cannot know for sure why they don't speak out.

Sometimes, I really wish one of them would come on to this forum and tell us!!!!!

[justsaying]

I agree that the judge did indeed say that, but I don't have to agree with him.

As for his girlfriend and family, as I have said previously, we cannot know for sure why they don't speak out.

Sometimes, I really wish one of them would come on to this forum and tell us!!!!!

Sometimes Mrswah - peoples silence speaks volumes! Including Vincent Tabaks!

[mrswah]

Questioning the evidence and outright disputing it is two totally different things. People have been convicted on a lot less. I do not see people disputing the evidence in those cases - in fact the way it is disputed in this case means that every single person ever found guilty of murder must be innocent.

Nonsense.  There are many people who have been convicted, and who I believe really are/were guilty.